Construction of a padel court and associated infrastructure (resubmission of P25/V0041/HH)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 February 2026 by Rachel Hall BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 March 2026 Appeal: 6001498 Kingston Lisle House, Kingston Lisle Park, Kingston Lisle, Wantage OX12 9QQ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by The La Finca De Oxford Trust against the decision of Vale of White Horse District Council. • The application reference is P25/V1384/HH. • The development proposed is described as ‘construction of a padel court and associated infrastructure (resubmission of P25/V0041/HH)’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. As the proposal relates to a listed building, I have had special regard to section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act). 3. The Council did not find that the proposal would harm the setting of the Kingston Lisle Conservation Area. On the evidence before me, including my own observations, I see no reason to conclude otherwise. 4. In response to the Council’s second reason for refusal, the appellant submitted a topographical survey and sectional drawing at appeal. The Council was given an opportunity to comment on this evidence and any comments have been taken into account in this decision. Accordingly, the appeal is determined in light of the additional evidence, and no parties are considered to have been prejudiced in so doing. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area bearing in mind the special attention that should be paid to the desirability of preserving the setting as it relates to the special interest of the Grade II* listed building, known as “Kingston Lisle House” (Ref: 1048722) (the LB), and the Grade II listed buildings known as “Kingston Lisle House, Gates, Gate- piers and Walls Approximately 200 Metres South West” (Ref: 1048725) (the south west gates) and “Kingston Lisle House, Gates and Gate Piers Approximately 400 Metres South” (the south gates) (Ref: 1198415). Appeal Decision 6001498 2 Reasons 6. The LB is a substantial country house set within extensive grounds. The built form of the LB has evolved over time. The structure of the front elevation is described as 1720-1740, with side wings added circa 1812. The elevation facing the rear garden (the rear elevation) is described as a 1620s to 1630s structure but remodelled in circa 1825. The main part of the rear elevation is symmetrical and of three storeys, with a central door and window bays to either side. This façade overlooks a lawned area and has longer views across the grounds of the LB, including towards the south west gates and beyond. 7. The current context in which it is experienced comprises its extensive grounds, including its lawned rear garden and more naturalistic landscaped grounds that slope away from the rear façade. I find that this landscaping contributes to its special interest as a high status, classically styled, Georgian country house. Given the above, I find that the setting of the LB, insofar as it relates to this appeal and its special interest, to be primarily associated with the extensive landscaped character of its grounds and the uninterrupted views of the LB that this enables. 8. The south west gates are positioned on lower ground relative to the LB, but appear aligned with the central door on its rear elevation. It comprises of early 19th century limestone ashlar piers with decorative wrought-iron gates, moulded cornice and ball finials. It is flanked by low walls with plain iron railings. Its historic context would likely have been similar to its current context, providing a physical and visible way marker for moving from the grounds of the LB towards its rear elevation. Accordingly, I find that its elegant form and its historic function contribute to its special interest. Given the above, I find that the setting of the south west gates, insofar as it relates to this appeal and its special interest, to be primarily associated with the rear grounds of the LB from which the special interest of the south west gates can be readily appreciated. This setting directly contributes to its special interest for the reasons given. 9. The south gates are located adjacent to the B4507 and similarly comprise square piers of limestone ashlar with moulded plinth and cornice with ball finials and wrought iron double gates. These are situated further from the LB than the south west gates, but are also positioned broadly in line with the south west gates and central rear door. The historic context of the south gates would likely have been as an entrance to the grounds of the LB, marking the start of a linear route to the LB. The current context in which it is experienced provides a similar marker, visible from the roadside. Although described as overgrown and close to a wooded area, I observed on my site visit that it was possible to reach the gates on foot from the appeal site, with some vegetation clearance appearing to have been undertaken. Undulations in the ground levels limit views through to the LB, however these emerge on walking from the south gates towards the house. Thus, I find that its form and historic function contribute to its special interest. Given the above, I find that the setting of the south gates, insofar as it relates to this appeal and its special interest, to be primarily associated with the grounds between the south gates and the south west gates and its historic association as part of a linear route to the LB. This setting directly contributes to its special interest. 10. The proposal comprises a padel court with 3m high Perspex walls, sections of galvanised electro-welded mesh, and a green artificial turf surface. The proposal would not be lit and would not be readily appreciable from outside the grounds of Appeal Decision 6001498 3 the LB. In addition, the proposal would not be located on structured landscaping within the garden. It would be located circa 150m from the LB and on lower ground such that from the rear elevation of the LB, little of the proposal would be visible. It would be positioned alongside the existing tennis court which has retaining walls of varying heights along three sides, two of which have mesh fencing above. Nonetheless, from the rear grounds of the LB, the tennis court appears relatively unobtrusive, with one long side being wholly unfenced, and it being set at a lower ground level than the more formal hedged garden area that is between the tennis court and the LB. The absence of a fully fenced enclosure around the tennis courts creates an informal, landscaped character rather than a more typical domestic one. 11. Although the Perspex walls would be transparent, these would comprise a substantial enclosure with a reflective surface. From the rear grounds of the LB this reflective surface would appear stark relative to the soft, natural landscaping that surrounds it. This starkness would be emphasised by large sections of mesh fencing on its long elevations. Also, although situated within extensive grounds, the proximity of the proposal to the tennis court would create a cluttered appearance, detracting from the informal, spacious, and gently sloping lawns that characterise this part of the grounds. 12. Whilst the espaliered trees would help to filter views of the proposal to a certain extent, the proposed walls of the padel court would be highly visible on approaching the LB from the south west gates. From there, the glazed geometric form of the proposal would appear alien relative to the gently sloping lawns. It would thus appear as a visually distracting feature that would draw attention away from the classical features of the LB. Consequently, in the particular circumstances of this case I find that the proposal would fail to preserve the special interest of the LB. The appellant submits that, if deemed necessary, additional changes to the site’s topography could be secured by condition. However, no such alterations are before me for consideration. 13. Similarly, the proposed walls would be a jarring feature that would draw attention away from the elegance of the south west gates when approaching the gates either from the LB, or from the south gates. Whilst a formal route through to the south gates may not currently be in existence and there are no current plans to reinstate it, evidence indicates that it was a historic route to the LB, lined by trees. Therefore, I find that the proposal before me would fail to preserve the special interest of the south west gates. 14. Given the distance from the south gates and the appeal site, and the lack of intervisibility between them, I find that the proposal would preserve the special interest of the south gates. Nonetheless, I give the harm to the special interest of the LB and the south west gates great weight in the planning balance of this appeal. 15. Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 213 goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through the alteration or destruction of those assets and that any such harm should have a clear and convincing justification. Appeal Decision 6001498 4 16. Given the scope of the works, I find the harm to be at the lower end of less than substantial in this instance but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. Where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of designated heritage assets, paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimal viable use. 17. There would be minor economic benefits associated with the construction of the proposal. However, I do not find that public benefits are sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified in this instance. I also note that the continued viable use of the appeal property as a residential dwelling is not dependent on the proposal as the building has an ongoing residential use that would not cease in its absence. 18. Given the above and in the absence of public benefits that would outweigh the harm that would be caused, I conclude that, on balance, the proposal would fail to preserve the special historic interest of the Grade II* LB and the Grade II listed south west gates. This would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act, paragraph 210(a) of the Framework and conflict with Policies CP37, CP39 and CP44 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1 (December 2016) and DP36 and DP38 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 2 (October 2019). These seek, among other things, to ensure that proposals achieve good design, having regard to the character of their surroundings including the historic environment. Conclusion 19. Given the above and considering all other matters raised, the appeal should be dismissed. Rachel Hall INSPECTOR